A circular depression at the spinoglenoid notch of a prehistoric Andean scapula: Plausible evidence of suprascapular nerve entrapment by a paralabral cyst

Accuracy of suprascapular notch cross-sectional area by MRI in the diagnosis of suprascapular nerve entrapment syndrome – a retrospective pilot study

“…SNES is a neuropathic condition in which the suprascapular nerve is compressed along the pathway. Traumatic injuries, such as clavicular fractures, scapular fractures, proximal humerus fractures, and dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint or shoulder, are common causes of suprascapular nerve damage [ 4 , 12 , 13 , 21 ]. Most importantly, suprascapular nerve compression most commonly occurs at the suprascapular notch, and its symptoms and signs are caused by nerve compression based on morphological changes in the suprascapular notch [ 2 , 22 , 23 ].…”

“…Trauma or traction injury due to repetitive overhead activities or massive rotator cuff tears occur in SNES [7][8][9][10]. The diagnosis of SNES should be differentiated from disorders of the cervical part of the spinal cord, damage to the brachial plexus, cervical discopathy or diseases of the shoulder joint, for example, damage to the rotator cuff or degeneration of the shoulder [11][12][13]. Thus, an exact diagnosis is important to manage SNES.…”

Paleopathology of Commingled Remains: A Case Study from the Prehispanic Highlands of Peru

“…As mentioned above, the majority of the articles found in this literature review were published between 2016 and 2022. These consist of paleopathological case studies of a single anomaly of interest (e.g., Halling and Seidemann 2018;Kieffer 2015;L'Engle Williams and Polet 2017;Palamenghi et al 2020;Schrenk et al 2016;Titelbaum, Ibarra, and McNeil 2019); explorations of a type of pathological condition or lesion within an assemblage or across populations, such as metabolic diseases (e.g., Ellis 2016;Paladin, Wahl, and Zink 2018;Perry and Edwards 2021;Thompson et al 2021) or degenerative joint diseases (e.g., Austin 2017;Yustos et al 2021), bioarchaeological and paleopathological population-level analyses and comparisons (e.g., Abegg et al 2021;Gregoricka 2016;Geber et al 2017;Figus et al 2017;Munoz 2017;Lowman Sharratt, and Turner 2019) or studies developing, testing, and refining methodologies including MNI calculations and taphonomy (e.g., Lambacher et al 2016;Palmiotto, Brown, and LeGarde 2019;Mack et al 2016;Moutafi and Voutsaki 2016;Schmitt and Bizot 2016;Vaduveskovic and Djuvic 2020), bone sorting and match-pairing (e.g., Bertsatos and Choralopoulou 2019;Santos and Villotte 2019), age-at-death or sex estimations (Anzellini and Toyne 2019;Beck and Smith 2019;Brickley, Dragomir, and Lockau 2016), and relational databases (Abegg et al 2021;Laforest 2016;Osterholtz 2019). This data, though far from exhaustive, demonstrates that there was a stark increase in interest in the study of commingled human remains in the last decade, particularly from 2015 and on.…”

“…To this day, the few paleopathological investigations of Andean commingled remains that have been published are either isolated case reports of unique pathological conditions (Titelbaum, 2020;Titelbaum, Ibarra and Naji, 2015;Titelbaum, Ibarra and McNeil, 2019;Titelbaum et al, 2021) or investigations using indicators of stress to research the health of past populations (Lowman et al, 2018;McCool, Anderson, and Kennett, 2021). As discussed in the previous section, most of the scholarship working on developing methodologies for the differential diagnoses of diseases in commingled remains (for example using the biological approach) or refining the methods used to estimate other parameters of the biological profile (such as age-atdeath or sex) that would aid in the interpretation of the observed pathological changes are being undertaken using European or Middle Eastern archaeological contexts, and thus may yield promising results when applied to Andean contexts.…”

“…This lack of scholarship stems in part from the belief that disturbed and fragmentary remains have lost most of their scientific value and that the fragmentary and isolated nature of the remains renders the establishment of differential diagnoses or demographic comparisons too challenging (Gerdau-Radonic and Herrera 2010; Toyne, Murphy, and Klaus 2020). While recent bioarchaeological studies of looted Prehispanic communal tombs have demonstrated that valuable data can be extracted from those commingled contexts (Bongers 2019;Gerdau-Radonic and Herrera 2010;Lane, Pomeroy, and Davila 2018;Velasco 2014Velasco , 2018, very few of them have focused exclusively on paleopathology (see Lowman, Harrod, and Turner 2018;McCool, Anderson, and Kennett 2021a;Nelson et al 2020;Titelbaum 2020;Titelbaum, Ibarra, and Naji 2015;Titelbaum, Ibarra, and McNeil 2019;Titelbaum et al 2021).…”